Autism – Potential Causes and Treatment

Speculating (rationally!) about autism makes for a fine exercise of the rational faculties of the mind.  Or, it does for those of you who still have some logical faculties remaining in your neural algorithm.  However few of you that may be.  But whatever is left of your kind is surely reading Pragmatically Distributed where we now direct the audience’s attention to the mystery that is autism.

Autism has proven a difficult puzzle to solve primarily because whatever its cause is must be one that has become more commonplace in modern environments but which was previously much less frequent.

As autism researchers can confirm, identifying a cause that satisfies this condition is no easy matter. Whatever causal factor it may be is hidden among a multitude of other possibilities as a result of the numerous changes in society seen in just the last fifty years; exponentially more than seen in almost any other half-century.

Nonetheless, much trial and error testing has been done by physicians during the course of treating the disease, and some candidate explanations have emerged from this process.

One theory for the increase in autism cases is, in our view, particularly interesting.

It has been proposed that Lyme disease might be causally related to autism.  According to this theory, Lyme infections accumulate heavy metal toxins such as iron, mercury, and cadmium and use these metals to construct a fibrin-based cellular matrix (called biofilms) that shields the Lyme microbes from attacks by the body’s immune system and antimicrobial drugs.  These toxic metals gradually poison the body and result in autistic symptoms.

Unfortunately, studies exploring the link between Lyme and autism have proven inconclusive.

However we would like to propose a modified theory – that autism is related to chronic infections of any kind, not only Lyme infections, and that chronic infections have been the inevitable result of decades of antibiotic usage.

Chronic illness is an interesting avenue to explore.  It was less of a problem in past times because so many persons died at an early age from illnesses that are now easily treated.  Mozart, for example, died at age 35.

Modern medicine has extended human lifespans, but in the process diseases too have adapted to this new situation.  The adaptations of bacteria have made it steadily more resistant to antibiotics and harder for doctors to treat.

Part of bacteria’s new strategy has been to survive antibiotic drugs by constructing protective biofilms similar to those that Lyme disease builds around itself.  Their protective barrier also accumulates the toxic metals iron, mercury, and cadmium, as well as others into its structure.

This combination of persistent metal poisoning and microbial infection might be related to autism.

If it turns out to be so, it would explain why autism is a recent phenomena and seemed to increase steadily over decades.

In the past most people would have died from microbial infections that are now treated with antibiotics.  However, the introduction of antibiotics forced microbes to change how they infect humans.  Instead of spreading as far throughout the body as possible, the microbes instead build a defensive matrix that holds off bodily and pharmaceutical agents designed to destroy them.  As humans used antibiotics more and more over the decades, infectious diseases increasingly turned to this defensive strategy.

The result has been a measurable increase in the number of chronic ailments, and one of those ailments might be autism.

If this theory is correct – and this is only a theory – and there is a link between chronic illness and autism then the following regimen could be used in autism treatments.

The treatment strategy to follow is:

  • Break apart the biofilm layer protecting the disease with an enzyme that will dissolve the fibrin that is key to the structure of the biofilm.
  • Use chelating agents to clear out the accumulated toxic metals that formed the biofilm as it is broken down by the fibrin dissolving enzyme.
  • Kill the now exposed microbes with natural anti-viral and anti-bacterial supplements.

The supplements (all of which are available over the counter and can be bought online without prescription) best suited to accomplish this three step process are:

  • Lumbrokinase to break down down biofilm by dissolving fibrin.  Lumbrokinase is the most powerful fibrin dissolving enzyme known to exist and has very few side effects as long as doses are kept under 20 mgs a day.  The only caveat to using it is to not use if the patient is on any type of blood thinner.
  • An acid crystal known as EDTA to chelate iron and cadmium out of the body taken once or twice a week.  Mercury is efficiently chelated out of the brain, nerve tissue, and the rest of the body by Alpha Lipoic Acid (using the S version of ALA, not the R version) and garlic supplements (or eating regular garlic cloves).  To chelate mercury, both ALA and garlic must be used at the same time.  They can be taken on a regular basis.
  • Finally, to kill the exposed bacteria and viruses, natural antimicrobial supplements such as oregano oil, olive leaf, and others will finish the process.

All supplements should be taken on an empty stomach.

When the chronic infection is attacked with this process the body may initially react with strong flu and cold like symptoms.  This reaction is a good sign because it means antibodies are now attacking the exposed infection and clearing toxic metals out of the body.  The symptoms should pass as toxins are removed, and if autism is linked to chronic infections, hopefully autistic symptoms will leave with them.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Autism – Potential Causes and Treatment”

  1. Elegant blog TUJ. When I saw your name I felt excited. I discovered MM on UR 8 months ago, and it was a revelation. I have read practically everything, including the comments, and you were one of the most consistent and incisive commentators.

    A few comments.

    Hamilton.

    I read every single entry on your blog last night. I am very excited by this project. It’s ironic, just yesterday, as I was waiting for a bus ,I was thinking about Hamilton and the need to study him. I intend to go back over and re-read the entries in close detail, reflect, then offer whatever comments I think are useful.

    Anti-Semitism

    I live in Northern Ireland, I don’t know any Jews. I have always been aware of the persecutions in history, and have always been sympathetic to Israel. I think the Jews, especially in Europe (France in particular), are in great danger. I think that left/Islamist animosity towards Israel and Jews will intensify in the coming years.

    You definition of AS is interesting, it is a lot more substantive than the claim that AS is simply legal discrimination.

    I found your arguments in UR on this subject persuasive. I must say, however, that that blog exposed me to the JQ in a way I had no knowledge of.

    While your claim that Jews simply joined the ruling elite (Anglo- progressives) is simple, coherent and explanatory, I want to make some points.

    Firstly, it actually pained me to learn about George Soros, for example. Secondly, I have always been suspicious (he is a Marxist) of Steve Jay Gould, and recent work has made a good case that he engaged in scientific malpractice. And on and on and on.

    My point is that this is a PR disaster for Jews. I mean, to me, someone who grew up in the shadow of the WW2, who did prize winning coursework (history cup) on the holocaust (this is a joke), George Soros is an almost comic-book cut out of the evil stereotype of who, in fact, manages to combine the worst of both types: radical leftist, parasite capitalist.

    However, I agree with you that this is a function of IQ, and the ambition to join the ruling class. However, and you can take this as a compliment TUJ, Jews are intellectually formidable. Their verbal, conceptual and logical abilities are outstanding. Indeed, beyond David Hume, Nicholas Rescher, and Thomas Sowell, most of my intellectual influences have been Jewish.

    I mean come on:

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/intj.php

    On Trump and Hamilton.

    I am very excited both by Trump’s victory and this blog offering commentary on his moves in light of Hamilton. What’s interesting, is that many commentators (John Hulsman say) argue that Trump is a Jacksonian, you disagree, of course. It would be interesting to do some kind of compare and contrast between the two. (I see no one else mention Hamilton by the way.)

    Furthermore, what do you think of Richard Fernandez? See, for instance, his latest entry at PJ media where he outlines the potential of a realist foreign policy for Trump.

    The Hamilton project.

    I have an intuition about this project. I’m not going to say it outright. But it will be interesting to see if I am right. (Something which will only be known many years from now.)

    Let’s just say I have read James Burnham, and I have studied Augustus.

    Nrx.

    You mentioned that you find NRx having a lot of liberal assumptions. I’m curious to hear more but what you mean by this claim.

    Autism.

    Do you have evidence that the rate of autism has increased in the last century?

    Are you actually saying that people diagnosed with autism can cure themselves with this treatment strategy?

    I thought that Autism was a consequence of the neural architecture formed in the womb — not something that can be cured. However, your treatment strategy is, presumably, testable so there is that.

    (On metals, madness and violence check out Adrain Raine’s Anatomy of Violence if you’re interested.)

    Best

    Dark Reformation.

  2. Elegant blog TUJ. When I saw your name I felt excited. I discovered MM on UR 8 months ago, and it was a revelation. I have read practically everything, including the comments, and you were one of the most consistent and incisive commentators.

    We are happy that not only are you commenting here but that you have already ingested so much from UR and Pragmatically Distributed.

    In a few years your powers with the Imperial energies might even rival Leonard’s veteran capabilities.

    Firstly, it actually pained me to learn about George Soros, for example. Secondly, I have always been suspicious (he is a Marxist) of Steve Jay Gould, and recent work has made a good case that he engaged in scientific malpractice. And on and on and on.

    In Soros’ case he was not particularly active in politics until the late 90s when he began funding Moveon.org to defend Bill Clinton against impeachment. He then became very involved politically in 2003 because he was disgusted with the Iraq War, which he and the rest of the far Left somehow interpreted as a radical right project.

    Despite his influence Soros is not an essential (in the literal sense of the word) figure on the Left; without him the inner party machinery would go on very much as they have with him.

    Soros is emblematic of what I consider to be the role of confirmation bias when it comes to Jewish participation in Leftism.

    As proof consider Europe’s refugee crisis. Much of the problem has been brought about ‘human rights’ legislation and treaties that the EU – both through its own legal system and at international forums – has tied the ability of member nations to deal with immigration down with chains.

    This legal burden has made it almost impossible for members to unilaterally deny the so-called refugees their rights to taxpayer supplied welfare or permit deportations. These intrusive EU-wide rules had been passed for decades, long before Soros’ involvement in politics.

    But because of confirmation bias what gets attention are not, say, Swedish or other dull gentile EU bureaucrats in Brussels writing binding refugee guidelines against the will of national parliaments, but Soros making millions in donations to provide refugees with pamphlets explaining their legal ‘rights’ in Europe.

    Now his actions and funding are certainly a negative but they aren’t as nearly as important as the gentile EUrocracy which had already mandated over many years that refugees have taxpayer funded immigration lawyers explain their rights in detail once they made it ashore to an EU state.

    Take another example of what I consider confirmation basis in Soros’ case where the worse actions of elite gentiles are ignored –

    The Commission that laid the groundwork for the launch of the euro currency was run by Jacques Delors, Chairman of the Delors Commission in the 1980s. The euro, as you know if you follow the EUReferendum blog, was deliberately created not for economic reasons but to repress the national identities of Europe’s peoples. Romano Prodi has even admitted that the euro currency was intentionally designed to fail so that the economic crisis it led to could be used as an excuse for the Brussels machinery to seize even more powers from national governments to ‘fix’ a problem the Brussels elite deliberately created.

    Delors is unheard of the American far right because he is not Jewish. But suppose instead of Delors it had been a younger George Soros (or another elite Jew like Dominque Strauss Kahn) who chaired that commission? If Soros had been the lead chairman of the euro project almost every American far right comment about Soros would include his role in it.

    But because Delors is not Jewish, the euro itself is hardly discussed.

  3. I am very excited both by Trump’s victory and this blog offering commentary on his moves in light of Hamilton. What’s interesting, is that many commentators (John Hulsman say) argue that Trump is a Jacksonian, you disagree, of course. It would be interesting to do some kind of compare and contrast between the two. (I see no one else mention Hamilton by the way.)

    As I see it Trump is, wittingly or unwittingly, pushing Hamiltonian policies but disguising them as Jacksonian populism. Whether he understands this, I have no idea with so much of what he does seemingly done more by instinct than a thought out plan.

    Whatever his motivations may be, his policies fit Hamilton’s Federalist Party wonderfully.

    You mentioned that you find NRx having a lot of liberal assumptions. I’m curious to hear more but what you mean by this claim.

    Could you give a specific example of what you have in mind?

    Do you have evidence that the rate of autism has increased in the last century?

    Are you actually saying that people diagnosed with autism can cure themselves with this treatment strategy?

    Autism may be overdiagnosed, to a point. But the increase has been too large to be explained entirely by misdiagnosis.

    If my theory is right then the treatment would be most effective the younger the patient. Mercury and other metal detox programs have been effective for adults exposed to these toxins in mining accidents, it might also work on autistic children. A number of doctors have reported success with this metal chelating program.

    And remember it was because autism symptoms aligned with mercury poisoning that led to the (no debunked) theory vaccines were the culprit. I suspect the mercury is involved somewhere, but it is related to a rise in chronic infections.

  4. TUJ

    Thanks for the response. It’s great to communicate with a Jewish person, I’m always excited to talk to people from outside my little Island.

    On Soros.

    Good point about confirmation bias, and on the EU.

    The point about refugees and the EU has a more sinister explanation, however:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Neather (Direct evidence of the “plan”.)

    “But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”, he went on to write. “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far. Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344939/mass-immigration-was-lefts-revenge-thatcher-mark-krikorian
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2384272/PETER-HITCHENS-Dont-blame-immigrants–arent-ones-wrecking-Britain.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224335/PETER-HITCHENS-The-slow-motion-New-Labour-putsch-swept-nation-away.html

    B: http://independenttrader.org/immigrants-flooding-europe.html

    “The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states” – Peter Sutherland, the UN’s special representative for migration.”

    Follow up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

    C: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752939/Borders-worst-invention-EU-chief-Jean-Claude-Juncker-widens-rift-European-leaders-calls-borders-opened.html

    I assume that this is all for permanent electoral dominance — divide and rule. Also, it has many other secondary benefits that enhance the left’s power, from foreign affairs to speech codes, to securing foreign funding, etc etc etc.

  5. On Hamilton, Islam and Strategy.

    Re-read the articles on Iran and Syria.

    Yes, good points, Sharply reasoned.

    The most important goal is to prevent A: a Nuclear armed Islamic state (Pakistan is already armed, so prevent anymore proliferation.) B: Prevent a regional dominator. C: Eliminate any international Jihad groups (stress on international).

    As for immigration, perhaps a “temporary shutdown” until the “war” is over, or until there are no more international Jihad groups.

    This policy would at least have a rational incentive structure; it would put the ball in their court, in particular the commercial, educated Muslims — pressuring them to pressure their governments to take action against the Jihadis; furthermore, it could be sold to the Western publics as a temporary measure that would provide incentives to Muslim countries to deal with the terrorists — it would be difficult for the left to counter, as it would be a “wartime” temporary strategy.

    Of course, these problems will continue for decades, but this would be a good frame for the policy.

    Who is in command?

    The big problem, and it was MM who brought this home to me, is that there is no leadership. No one who is the locus of power and responsibility.

    Napoleon and Alexander could meet and negotiate; the Allies and the Nazis could, theoretically, have engaged in negotiation; indeed, who knows what could have happened if the Prussian generals had of stepped in early enough.

    But with the West and Islam? No one is in charge.

    Imagine, post 9/11 if we had a Muslim sovereign, Pope like figure ( the Caliph) who, as part of a formal treaty, was obligated to capture or kill OBL.

    It’s a little bit like when Tommy got whacked over Billy Batts in Goodfellas. Different crews, but the leaders take responsibility over their underlings “unsanctioned behaviour.” And if the leader (Caliph) does not fulfil his treaty obligations, then you make life difficult for his subordinates…..

    Of course, as part of a treaty, *we* would have obligations as well — which would involve many of the things you say.

    What Trump Could Say about Islam.

    Finally, what it if Trump came out and said something like:

    ” The United States Government takes no official position as to the nature of Islam or the reasons for the perpetrators of these crimes. But we will, believe me, reserve the right to take action against anyone, anywhere, who has expressed violent intent and is planning to commit terrorism against America, its interests, and its people.

    Now, we wanna do business with everyone, including Muslims. But we will defend ourselves with lethal force if necessary. In return, we are willing to respect the independence of Muslim governments, laws and the peoples of Islam, and every other nation.”

    NRX

    Cute retort — forcing the issue back onto me. You made the claim (somewhere), I was just curious as to here why.

    Nonetheless, your question gets to the issue, what is X? The first, and arguably most important lesson I learned in philosophy was the “essentially contested nature of concepts.”

    What do we mean by liberal, after all?

    Clearly, you must have read some of their stuff, and saw problems with it. I’ll guess that it has to do with the following:

    1: The relationship between individual and society — individualism. Human, or Lockean rights assumed.
    2: Too much focus on culture and ideas as the source of change and not enough on political systems, institutions, social hierarchies and the struggle for power and pre-eminence within and among them
    3: Prescriptions focus on ideology and not power, and the need to fix the structure of governance.

    Am I close?

    On Syria.

    I agree with this.

    How much, do you think, the chaos and destruction is intentional? As Lenin said: “the worse it gets, the better it will be.” Edward Luttwak said, satirically, that Bush was a “strategic genius” for instigating a sectarian civil war in the religion that will last for decades.

    I guess this gets to the heart of the matter. Is the left simply misguided, but well intentioned? Or, is it deliberate and power-hungry?

    This question, the attempt to understand human motives has occupied me to no end. I won’t give me answer here; however, when it comes to politics if we analyse actors acting in terms of power and self-interest it everything makes more sense.

    Best.

  6. The point about refugees and the EU has a more sinister explanation, however:

    Yes.

    The EU since it was first dreamed of the inter-war years has always been about erasing national identity. Schengen was signed back in 1985 and everything you’ve linked to about immigration is consistent with the Monnet Method.

    This policy would at least have a rational incentive structure; it would put the ball in their court, in particular the commercial, educated Muslims — pressuring them to pressure their governments to take action against the Jihadis;

    I have very little confidence moderate Muslims will be able to reform their religion. The added advantage of my version of Auster’s containment strategy is that this can remain the consensus strategy perpetually should Islam never moderate itself, while also giving us freedom to retaliate much more harshly if required.

    It’s a little bit like when Tommy got whacked over Billy Batts in Goodfellas. Different crews, but the leaders take responsibility over their underlings “unsanctioned behaviour.” And if the leader (Caliph) does not fulfil his treaty obligations, then you make life difficult for his subordinates…

    We did run this sort of system during the Cold War when we reached agreements with Muslim dictators to prop them up and ignored their government’s brutality as long they remained in NATO’s sphere of influence and they rogue terrorist cells in their own borders were suppressed.

    Anwar al-Sadat, the secular Turkish junta, Mubarak, and the Shah during the Cold War; Gadhafi, al-Sissi, and Assad in more recent times were satisfactory client dictators.

    Cute retort — forcing the issue back onto me. You made the claim (somewhere), I was just curious as to here why.

    No, I’m serious, what specifically do want me to address about it?

    How much, do you think, the chaos and destruction is intentional?

    The reason Hillary and other left-liberal internationalists overthrew Gadhafi with such recklessness and tried to do the same to Egypt’s oligarchy then headed by Mubarak and Assad was their refusal to admit different cultures and races have different civilizational abilities making some of them more suitable for democracy than others. They believed toppling Libya’s dictatorship should have led to a Libyan transition to democracy as easily as the Czechs did after the Soviet Empire collapsed because they truly believe there are no differences between Libyans and Czechs. Their actions, and refusal to acknowledge the contradictory results, prove they simply followed liberal equality ideology to its logical conclusion.

    Obama, on the hand, I believe deliberately overthrew Gadhafi and made further such attempts against the regimes of Egypt and Syria because he identifies with Muslim terrorism and desired to see radical Muslims take power across the Middle East.

  7. Thanks for the ongoing exchange, I hope I’m not clogging up the Autism post with all this.

    EU.

    Yes, the articles I cited are recent, but it seems, from what little I have read, that this “project” has a long, deep history. I shall remember, for future reference, this “Monnet method.”

    Islam, Strategy and Progressivism.

    I also share your skepticism of moderates.

    If these “moderates” actually do become large and powerful, it is possible that they will “reform” the faith into a form of progressivism. Muslims, like Maajid Nawaz, and other “moderates” are really just progressives — they are moving up in the world. Start as a “radical”, make some noise, then see the light; then make money on a book deal, lecture circuit, government sponsored program dealing with radicalisation etc etc.

    In short, progressives are out to convert the smartest, most ambitious, and cynical of Muslims, especially female Muslims in order to boost their own numbers and further their collective self-interest. Furthermore, having “moderates” on your side serve as a cover for any accusations of racism, imperialism etc. Furthermore, and Robert Kagan confirmed this suspicion of mine in an Atlantic article, having home-grown, Algerian Muslims say who can move between “worlds” makes it easier for America to “police” the world.

    You write:

    “The added advantage of my version of Auster’s containment strategy is that this can remain the consensus strategy perpetually should Islam never moderate itself, while also giving us freedom to retaliate much more harshly if required.”

    Indeed. When it comes to strategy what we say, what we expect, and what the real intentions of our goals are often going to be distinct.

    We can be perfectly honest about saying that a ban is contingent on peace, treaty and moderation but believe that it will never happen; so this allows one, if and when necessary, to “retaliate much more harshly.”

    One of my ideas is to call for the restoration of the Caliphate.

    Why? As I said, it would be ideal for someone to bring order, and to take responsibility for both the theology (official), aggression and to negotiate with. Secondly, this outflanks the Islamists, since we are calling for the Caliphate, separation and respect for their culture (in their lands) — which is exactly what they (appear) to want; it would surprise them, and cause them possibly focus attention away from the West towards their own governments again.

    However, it will likely never happen. So, the default would be the perpetual containment strategy, with occasional acts of pre-emptive or retaliatory aggression, as you suggest. In short, tit-tat, carrot and stick, game theory.

    Israel, to me, appears to be the model here for such a strategy. Guard against attack and defeat, offer terms, but hit back if and when necessary. There is no conclusion, just an ongoing, constant struggle for power.

    Two quick questions come to mind:

    1: How significant do you think it is that, as far as I can see, the left are going down to slow defeat in Israel as a consequence of constant Muslim aggression? Any lessons for the West here?

    2: How close does Israel, at the moment, come to the Hamiltonian philosophy you are describing and advocating?

    NRX

    Well, you said something like “they will end up tripping over themselves in the coming years.” That seems to me to imply a claim of philosophical incoherence. So, from what you have read, what weakness, inconsistencies and confusions do you perceive?

    Furthermore, you mentioned NRx’s liberalism. The presentation of Hamilton here is that he is a conservative, capitalist and nationalist. So, are you referring to NRx economic liberalism, or social liberalism or something else?

    You clearly have much more experience than me in this, given your commenting at UR, and I was just curious — I hope I’m not boring you with this.

    Many thanks for the time you’re taking in response to me.

    I have re-read some of the essays here — masterfully written. Plus, those extracts from Prince Metternich were fascinating, and deeply depressing. It seems we humans never learn, and are doomed to repeat both the mistakes and the painfully gained insights of our ancestors.

  8. Thanks for the ongoing exchange, I hope I’m not clogging up the Autism post with all this.

    Not at all. This is very productive.

    By all means bring up any topic you like – UR’s comment threads also veered off in wild directions much to its benefit.

    Yes, the articles I cited are recent, but it seems, from what little I have read, that this “project” has a long, deep history. I shall remember, for future reference, this “Monnet method.”

    The definitive work about the origins of the EU and the Monnet Method is the book The Great Deception.

    Start as a “radical”, make some noise, then see the light; then make money on a book deal, lecture circuit, government sponsored program dealing with radicalisation etc etc.

    In short, progressives are out to convert the smartest, most ambitious, and cynical of Muslims, especially female Muslims in order to boost their own numbers and further their collective self-interest.

    Yes it’s all fun and games for those, essentially, apostate Muslim women as long as their cultural influence is limited to book signings, drinking at posh cocktail parties with clueless Western elites, being interviewed on news programs, and giving speeches on college campuses.

    But if they’re ever caught in the home country when the local junta is toppled by Islamic warlords and the last flight to the safe spaces of Western universities has left the tarmac without them, it’s off to an ISIS run sex slave market for them.

    Furthermore, and Robert Kagan confirmed this suspicion of mine in an Atlantic article, having home-grown, Algerian Muslims say who can move between “worlds” makes it easier for America to “police” the world.

    Kagan is certainly stupid enough to believe that some Westernized Algerians will make the Muslim street see the light and embrace Western civilization, but it does not and will not benefit American power in anyway as he apparently thinks.

    However, it will likely never happen. So, the default would be the perpetual containment strategy, with occasional acts of pre-emptive or retaliatory aggression, as you suggest. In short, tit-tat, carrot and stick, game theory.

    Israel, to me, appears to be the model here for such a strategy. Guard against attack and defeat, offer terms, but hit back if and when necessary. There is no conclusion, just an ongoing, constant struggle for power.

    Exactly right, although Israel does not have the capacity to expand this method to the entire Muslim world (or at least the most troublesome portions of it) as the United States has. As an ally to a containment strategy Israel is nicely positioned to serve as a complement to it.

    1: How significant do you think it is that, as far as I can see, the left are going down to slow defeat in Israel as a consequence of constant Muslim aggression? Any lessons for the West here?

    I’m not sure Israel’s politics can convert to other Western states. The Israeli right is becoming stronger because of the high birth rate of religious Jews and prominence of nationalistic Russian Jews.

    2: How close does Israel, at the moment, come to the Hamiltonian philosophy you are describing and advocating?

    I don’t see Israel as matching any kind of model for Hamiltonians. Their economy is still too Socialistic, they do not have as America does the resources to be more than a regional power, and Israel’s mindset is not supportive of elitism.

    Well, you said something like “they will end up tripping over themselves in the coming years.” That seems to me to imply a claim of philosophical incoherence. So, from what you have read, what weakness, inconsistencies and confusions do you perceive?

    Since you are British I should clarify that I was referring to weakness with American neoreactionaries, except Trump who I see as fitting the Hamiltonian tradition rather than an alt-right one.

    European nationalists I believe are on the right track.

  9. Ok, Cool.

    On Israel

    I believe there is one talking point that could be used. Trump used it, and Steve Sailer commented on it, and I believe it could extended.

    Point to Israel’s security policies: profiling, immigration and strong assertion of national, ethnic identity. Claim that if it is good enough for the Jews, it is good enough us (Americans). Critics will croak, but then the charge of Anti-Semitism can be played. The croakers will have enough dirt in their file, and guilty associates, to play the confirmation bias game against them. Drive a wedge between Israel, Jews and the Democrat party, while solidifying support on one’s own side. (Ongoing examples of terrorism and leftist AS will provide plenty of material.)

    Thoughts on the Blog.

    I think the central idea here is a promising one. In a way, it is the neoconservative project in reverse. Kristol said that they intended to “convert the Republican Party against their will to neoconservatism.”

    This project intends to do something similar.

    What’s promising is the following:

    1: It is within the American tradition.

    Either you begin a new system, or reform and evolve a current one. You have went with the second option. It makes it easier for people to understand and accept. You identify premises or shared values then get people to accept your product because it is consistent with what they already accept.

    The “they” are both American conservatives who are the intellectuals, pundits and strategists; secondly, the broad masses of middle America.

    So, it is persuasive because it uses the principle of commitment and consistency.

    2: It has an icon.

    I think it is easier for people to relate to a person, to a character, rather than to abstract ideals. Of course, if you can unite both in one person, all the the better. Alexander Hamilton offers such a possibility — he seems to be a “universal man”.

    Books can be written, images can be produced, documentaries can be made, films can be directed, even computer games could be designed.

    American politics makes use of hero Presidents: Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln. Hamilton was never President, but you want to offer Lincoln as the President and Hamilton as the architect.

    It is persuasive because it uses the principle of authority — Hamilton, a founding father.

    Furthermore, Trump (if he is successful and consistent) offers the prospect of “social proof” for your project.

    Broad Appeal

    Hamilton offers something for everyone. The intellectuals: historians, philosophers, economists. It offers politicians a model to emulate. It also would, naturally, appeal to the military and military men. Furthermore, Hamilton could also appeal to the disaffected male crowd, and those who are the alpha males. The assertion of masculinity.

    Furthermore, it naturally appeals to those with financial power. As Coolidge said: “The business of America is business.” So there is that.

    The spheres of power:

    1: Military (Tick.)
    2: Financial (tick.)
    3: Legal. (You are attempting to offer a coherent philosophy, which would include a legal philosophy; however, you will have a huge fight on your hands against the legal system which includes the legal philosophers.)
    4: Intellectual. (Tick.)
    5: Morality. Putting aside meta-ethics, here I mean sentiments and the ability to move people emotionally. (Tick — Trump’s campaign shows there is a great hunger for this kind of thing.)
    6: Mass power. (Tick — the project offers to unite not only certain elites (military, economic and religious but the broad masses.)

    Interests.

    Plenty of promise to connect with interests, so it can persuade on that level.

    However, I should say that the left will complain most bitterly. Everyone needs to “eat”. So, what is in it for them, in terms of interests, perks, power and pleasure?

    Rationality.

    The project offers that rare thing: an intellectual conservatism, a coherent intellectual philosophy.

    If NRX can be of use here, I suggest that it can serve as the hammer to your anvil, the wedge, the attack from the rear. If they distract and disorient, degrade and disillusion the intelligentsia of the left, and convert young “Brahmins” away from progressivism, then your brand of both nationalist, conservative capitalism can offer the popular, optimistic “there is no alternative” vision. Plus, you can end up offering a choice: “us, or those scary reactionaries.”

    Obstacles.

    Well, you know there is a mountain to climb here. Let’s go back to neoconservatism. I think it was Kristol or Podhoretz who said Neocons always start “journals”. So, that’s one thing. However, the NC were able to teach those who went on to become players in the administration. How can that be achieved, given the climate on campus? A think tank?

    Trump has risk and opportunities. Associating the “Brand” with him could bring attention and influence. The risks are that he is a failure.

    One thing about Trump, he never makes any allusions to former Presidents as a model, with the slight exception of Reagan. There is a gap there to be filled perhaps. A few commentators are trying to paint him as Jacksonian (in order to malign him). A branding exercise for him could be to adopt “Hamilton.” Might be use for the next election.

    To me, if change is to come, it must come from the Americans. England, and my own country — Northern Ireland — seem hopeless. There is fire, grit and determination in the American heart. Plus, it has the military, and the populace have guns, and a spirit of independence.

    Best

  10. Point to Israel’s security policies: profiling, immigration and strong assertion of national, ethnic identity.

    Again, Israel’s politics do not translate to anything of much use for other Western states about the topics you mention except airport profiling.

    As an ethno-state Israel is a failure because it isn’t an ethnically Ashkenazi state – almost a quarter of the population is Muslim Arab, less than half of all Israeli Jews are European Jews, and if their numerous blonde beach babes are any indication many of those European Jews are basically Slavs in terms of their genetics. The other half of Israeli Jews consist of Mizrahi who are quite different ethnically from Ashkenazi Jews.

    If Israel counts as an ethnostate with those demographics then so do America, Britain and France. But they don’t and neither does Israel

    Israeli immigration is not something you would want to copy. It is religiously based, and that barely so. Anyone who has at least one Jewish grandparent regardless of what Jewish ethnicity that single grandparent is can receive Israeli citizenship without numeric caps.

    The equivalent policy for Britain would be to grant citizenship to anyone in the world with one Christian grandparent. Instantly most of Sub-Saharan Africa and almost all of Latin America would qualify for British citizenship. For starters.

    Do you still want Israel’s citizenship policy?

    As for American Jews and Israel, I’m afraid many of them are just not deeply interested in the security of Israel to switch parties.

  11. Hamilton

    Everything you say is an advantage.

    Another is that I have him all to myself because very few historians of whatever ideological persuasion understand Hamilton’s place in history. Many Progressives and Libertarians place him, very wrongly, on the Left side of America politics. This mistake is not made just by modern lightweight Twitter Progressives but also past “intellectual heavyweight” Progressives like Herbert Croly.

    But the more I explain (and I still haven’t even scratched the surface – I still have to get to Lincoln’s role in this Imperial tradition!) the more standard conservative pundits will warm to him and his legacy. At least the smarter ones will.

    Hamilton has much to say about the legal sphere of American government – it was his insistence at the Constitutional Convention on giving the Federal government enough central power over economics, foreign policy, and defense that turned America into the greatest world power in history.

    Icons.

    As a symbol of American statesmanship Hamilton is not limited to himself. He is the political forbearer to Lincoln, Henry Clay, and the entire Republican Party from 1860 to 1932. The tradition he brings is essential to American Conservatism, especially the ruling classes of the Republicans.

    Trump & Hamilton.

    Trump, of course, could barely recite a simple bullet point list of his policies through most of the campaign. It is therefore likely he has little to no understanding of how closely he is adhering to Hamilton’s principles.

    And yet he may not need to understand – Hamilton’s system of government was built to give the President almost king-like authority over his realm, so when a man like Trump who views himself as royalty becomes President of the United States he inevitably adopts the American political tradition (without understanding it) most suited for a king.

    Obstacles.

    I don’t view neoconservatives as any kind of obstacle. They were only in power from 2001 to 2006/2007 when 911 gave justification to reform the Middle East as a way to drain the dissatisfaction of the Arab street into Democratic channels. Since 2008 they have been restricted to journals, Twitter, and TV punditry ever since.

    If neocons are viewed as a threat, instead of a minor annoyance, by the American altright and paleocons then that simply demonstrates the incompetence and weakness of an altright/paleocon punditry that is unable to easily defeat feeble neocons opponents.

    On the other hand neocons, too, include Hamilton and Lincoln among their political icons; the flaw to their admiration is that they like most everyone else they do not understand their heroes’ politics – Lincoln wanted the freed slaves to be resettled in Africa while Hamilton, as he demonstrated in his many condemnations of the French Revolution, doubted Democracy could be easily adopted outside the Anglo-Saxon world.

  12. Neoconservatism

    Oh, I was referring to more to the progressives, rather than Neoconservatives, being obstacles. However, since I view Neocons as the “Jacobin” wing of the left, I wonder if these kind of distinctions matter. Basically, I see the Neocons in the tradition of Wilson. Max Boot, for instance, refers to himself as a “hard Wilsonian.”

    However, despite the advantages I outlined earlier, the obstacles exist right across the political sphere, especially in the institutions such as law, civil service, academia and the media, not to mention many in the corporate world who support the opposite of the ideas you are developing.

    On Israel.

    You know more than me on the actual situation; my point was more about rhetoric than reality.

    On Metternich.

    I forgot to mention last time, that linking Hamilton and Metternich could allow Europeans to re-discover an older, more conservative and more European system of thought. Potential for link up.

    On Trump

    I believe Trump is a lot more canny than people think. I think he has little to no awareness of any kind of history, philosophy or political thought — but the man has good instincts (killer instincts). If his cabinet and advisers fill in the details and provide the pro/con list, I think he will make decisions that will attempt to make America safer, stronger and richer.

    That is a good point about Trump seeing himself as a kind of king. During the last primary debate with Bush (South Carolina?) he said: “the Twin Towers came down during your brother’s reign.” The word “reign” stood out to me as queer, and quite revealing of Trump’s thought process.

    BTW, ever since, many years ago, I read a biography of Jefferson who, in conversation with Hamilton, said that the greatest men who ever lived were “Bacon, Newton and Locke.” And Hamilton replied that “Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.” I filed Hamilton away for further study. Looking forward to the rest of the series.

    Best.

    DR

  13. Oh, I was referring to more to the progressives, rather than Neoconservatives, being obstacles. However, since I view Neocons as the “Jacobin” wing of the left, I wonder if these kind of distinctions matter. Basically, I see the Neocons in the tradition of Wilson. Max Boot, for instance, refers to himself as a “hard Wilsonian.”

    The Left has been Jacobin since 1789.

    Neoconservatism is a niche portion of a decayed establishment right and far too much attention has been paid to it. It failed because it tried to incorporate aspects of Progressivism into the Right without understanding the history of the Progressives, the history of the Right, and as a result did not see how their ideas are irreconcilable.

    Max Boot makes my argument for me. He calls himself a “hard Wilsonian” but he is not because he doesn’t believe – as Wilson did during the debate whether America should join the League of Nations – that international organizations should have veto power over America’s use of armed force.

    A hard Wilsonian is a left-Liberal internationalist, someone like Jimmy Carter or Hillary Clinton.

    Boot is by definition not a “hard Wilsonian”; that he thinks he is shows the neocons are a pack of feeble talking head pundits.

    You know more than me on the actual situation; my point was more about rhetoric than reality.

    Without facts rhetoric is poor rhetoric.

    I forgot to mention last time, that linking Hamilton and Metternich could allow Europeans to re-discover an older, more conservative and more European system of thought. Potential for link up.

    Hamilton and Metternich will have to remain separate issues. As Royalist as Hamilton’s mind was, his system cannot be welded to European Imperialist ideology anymore than Metternich’s Hapsburg Imperialism could be exported to Anglo-Saxon nations, despite however many Germans make up British Royalty.

    But as I’ve said before, it is useful to observe Metternich’s Westphalian Imperialism if only to get a broader view of what conservatism is.

    I filed Hamilton away for further study. Looking forward to the rest of the series.

    Excellent. As I mentioned before, much more is on the way.

    Any thoughts about this Russia article since you are keen on foreign policy?

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/russia/

  14. Thanks for the response.

    On Russia.

    What can I say? I found that article to be a crisp articulation of a sound foreign policy.

    The real question is why has America pursued the reverse?

    Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard frames the issue by borrowing something from Halford Mackinder. The heartland, the world island and the world. Russia without Ukraine is a country, Russia with Ukraine is an empire. So, that would explain it. Also, one possibility regarding the Syrian war was America’s attempt to push the Russians out of their naval base in Tartus.

    The game is world domination. Americans took the a gamble, and it does not appear to have paid off. I say appeared, because the tricky thing about foreign policy and grand strategy is how different things look depending upon what perspective one has, and what one’s goals are.

    I won’t argue it here, but one could argue that all this chaos — in the Middle East, and in Europe, even in America —is to the progressives ultimate benefit.

    However, unless a deep game — a very deep game — of deception is being played between America and Russia (making it look like their competing against each other for mutual benefit), then the obvious interpretation is that Russia has scored significant victories over America in the last several years. This would be the view of “The Saker”. I believe it is the correct one, because it is consistent with evidence that we have.

    Let me try to throw some (probably) soft balls your way.

    1: Crimea

    Niall Fergusson thinks Trump should demand a “free and fair election” in Crimea seeing if they vote to be part of Russia. You argue for “wait and see.” One problem with that could be that other countries (China?) could make moves and not have to try to make it seem “democratic”. If Crimea votes and goes with Russia, it makes it look formal, and less like a political burglary, with less incentives to other burglars. The Eastern Europeans, who you rightly say are jumpy, might come round to such a thing, because it’s formalised (democratic).

    2: China.

    Around the webs, I see some pundits calling for a Kissinger strategy of peeling Russia away from China.

    Certainly, that is a good strategy. Christopher Coker (an English analyst I find very insightful) claimed that the nightmare for the West was an alliance of Russia and China and that is what has been happening. However, Coker thinks that Russia has more to fear from China (and Russia apparently thinks this) than the West, because of Russia’s East. Apparently, he claims that Russia has all its best troops and crack weaponry near the Chinese border.

    The problem with the Kissinger strategy has been encapsulated by the Russian statement that America was not “agreement capable”.

    Look at it from Putin’s perspective: long term, will America pursue the kind of foreign policy that Trump seems to want, and you? Or, will it be back to the regular routine of Obama/Hilary?

    If I were Putin, I would want to keep my options open as much as possible and not commit to America, or China — but I would, for the next few years, be keeping China very close.

    Putin has, I believe, the advantages here, and he can push Trump hard, but not too hard — he wants a deal, but he won’t be too chummy.

    It is to Putin’s benefit, however, that he make a good deal with America, and that America pursue the goals you want.

    In short, America must choose between Russia and China. Trump seems to be focusing on China, and Putin can now extract significant benefits, but not get too greedy.

    Very delicate, both need to come out looking strong. Trump can’t be seen to be too soft, Putin needs to end the sanctions, and he needs to be able to show to the American right that, while Russia may not be friends, they don’t have to be enemies.

    3: Iran.

    The article does not mention Iran.

    Your essay on Iran was excellent, by the way.

    However, if America and Israel are going to have to whack Iran, then what will Putin’s response be?

    I don’t think he could accept regime change, but he could ultimately accept America, with some toy opposition, busting up their nuclear program.

    All in all, a very dangerous game. Coker thinks the world has never been this polarised for decades.

    You should write a piece titled an Open Letter from Prince Metternich to the World in 2017.

    4: Afghanistan.

    What’s going on there do you think?

    Looks like a total debacle on paper. But is there deep games afoot?

    MM thinks that modern Western armies can’t fight because of the left. Martin Van Crevald seems to agree. MM thinks Cromer could teach them a thing or two, I would be thinking more along the lines of Caesar in Gaul.

    What if America is foot dragging in Afghanistan partly because of China? Apparently, according to the Pentagon Papers, America was in Vietnam in order to contain China. Afghanistan would provide strategic depth and a semi-encirclement position against China. America has naval advantage, but China is attempting to counter it with the One Belt One Road plan. From Afghanistan, America could bomb whatever train lines China has to the outside world. Furthermore, Afghanistan would be a base to start trouble in Xinjiang and Tibet.

    Another idea for you is to write out a piece on what to do now in Afghanistan, and what should have been done according to your principles.

    On Jews, Communism and Israel.

    Have you read this?

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/israel-without-apology-12440.html

    The Communists are there, out and proud. The author took three decades to realise they he was a bat shit crazy fool.

    Despite it all, he believed that the Oslo accords would usher in peace, Podhoretz warned that there would be blood, and was right.

    You said that liberal Jews in America don’t care all that much about Israel. I believe that attempts need to be made to get them to see that there really is a clash of civilisations, and that they will need to pick a side, otherwise were will the Jews go? The way the left is going, Jews will be sacrificed, and if Israel falls?

    Reading that article, however, makes one despair of the possibility of persuading people.

    BTW is your circular link broken?

    Best

    DR.

  15. What can I say? I found that article to be a crisp articulation of a sound foreign policy.

    Why, thank you.

    However, unless a deep game — a very deep game — of deception is being played between America and Russia (making it look like their competing against each other for mutual benefit), then the obvious interpretation is that Russia has scored significant victories over America in the last several years. This would be the view of “The Saker”.

    I don’t see a deep game, rather just liberalism being carried to its logical conclusions regardless of how much failure it runs into.

    The problem for Russia is that while it has been somewhat successful in limited tactical areas it cannot sustain its strategy without great costs. A deal that puts Russian-American relations on track is arguably more pressing for Russia than America.

    1: Crimea

    Crimea is well outside of China’s sphere of influence. I wouldn’t factor their involvement in that imbroglio.

    I agree the Peninsula ideally should be formally recognized as part of Russia. The problem with a referendum, or any other endorsement of Russia annexing it, is that the Central and East Europeans will not care if a fair vote in Crimea goes 100% for reunification; the precedent it sets is dangerous even if the vote is clean. There’s also the fact the government of Western Ukraine would also have to recognize the annexation and I can’t imagine a surer way for a Ukrainian government to walk the plank than acceding territory to Russia.

    If America cannot forcibly drive Russia out of Crimea, and we cannot officially acquiesce to its occupation, the best thing to do is nothing and negotiate with them on other matters.

    I see some pundits calling for a Kissinger strategy of peeling Russia away from China.

    Certainly, that is a good strategy. Christopher Coker (an English analyst I find very insightful) claimed that the nightmare for the West was an alliance of Russia and China and that is what has been happening. However, Coker thinks that Russia has more to fear from China (and Russia apparently thinks this) than the West, because of Russia’s East. Apparently, he claims that Russia has all its best troops and crack weaponry near the Chinese border.

    Well, today it would be a reverse Kissinger; the original version was meant to pull China out of Russia’s orbit.

    Based on how you describe his viewpoints I like how Coker thinks.

    I also believe Russia cannot make a Chinese alliance work because China doesn’t need Russia, neither side trusts the other, and because China’s power will make it able to dictate harsher terms to Russia than what the West will demand. With a Chinese partnership seemingly doomed to being limited to empty gestures, Putin has less room to turn down a deal with Trump.

    Whether Trump can build an enduring partnership with Russia depends how well his negotiations go. If they succeed they could become the default policy of future administrations.

    However, if America and Israel are going to have to whack Iran, then what will Putin’s response be?

    Putin will do nothing. An airstrike against Iran’s nuclear program, but which does not target the regime itself (and an airstrike would not be nearly enough to topple the Ayatollahs), leaves Russia in no better or worse a position than before the airstrike. Without an Iranian nuclear capacity, the Middle East status quo is not altered for the worse than it was in previous years when Iran also did not have the bomb.

    What would destabilize the status quo in the Middle East is the acquisition of an Iranian bomb, not the preventing of that acquisition.

    4: Afghanistan.

    Moldbug’s point is correct, and especially as it concerns Afghanistan where highly Carthaginian measures (measures precluded by modern Leftism) are called for to bring an unusually savage population to heel.

    The trouble with Afghanistan is that, unlike Iraq, its territory was used to organize the 911 attacks. This legacy makes it difficult to withdraw and allow new Muslim terrorists to take it over.

    It also is too exceptionally tribalistic to host one brutal, American client dictator to govern the place on our behalf. There is no Afghani strongman in the mold of Saddam (the good Saddam when he did our bidding in the 1980s), Mubarak, late-career Gadhafi, or secular Turkish junta that can exercise sovereignty over the whole nation and with whom we can work with.

    I’m actually not sure what to do with the place.

    I do, however, doubt it could ever fit an American containment policy against China or a Chinese containment policy against America because, as mentioned, Afghanistan is too anarchic for anyone, even China, to gain a firm enough hold on it to convert it into a dependable proxy state that is worth the cost.

    You said that liberal Jews in America don’t care all that much about Israel. I believe that attempts need to be made to get them to see that there really is a clash of civilisations, and that they will need to pick a side, otherwise were will the Jews go? The way the left is going, Jews will be sacrificed, and if Israel falls?

    The European Left sacrificed Israel for the Muslim vote and Arab oil contracts a half century ago. European Jews are increasingly voting Right, but they aren’t as important in Europe as the United States.

    BTW is your circular link broken?

    That was a draft article that was accidentally published.

  16. Sorry for the somewhat late response.

    Quick responses.

    1: Kissinger strategy. Yes, that’s what I meant.
    2: China/Crimea. It’s about the “rules of the road.” If one actor breaks the rules and does not get punished, then others (such as China) will factor that into its cost/benefit ratio. It’s just one factor that would have to weighed — one not mentioned in your article, but that’s ok.
    3: Ukraine. Yes, you are probably right. Point is, it’s all about negotiation. Positions evolve as the negotiations continue.
    4: Jews and Europe. That was a brutal reply. Probably true. Sickening, but then no more sickening than their sacrifice of their “own” population”.
    5: Christopher Coker. I have read several of his books, and watched many of his lectures. I highly recommend The Improbable War: America and China.

    This was an interesting lecture:

    Thoughts on the following:

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-new-world-order/

    It’s very close to your position, though a little more idealistic. He bills Teddy Roosevelt as the model.

    Ferguson seems optimistic.

    On Afghanistan.

    Trump has said surprisingly little about this country, be interesting to see what he will do.

    The character “Slim Charles” in The Wire said: “don’t matter who started it, if it’s a lie, then we fight on that lie, but we gotta fight.”

    America has fallen into a sunk cost trap with Afghanistan, ruling out, most likely, a deep game.

    Here is what I mean in a little more detail about a possible deep game, however.

    America may need a land base for potential strikes against China. All America really needs, is a few bases, not an entire country.

    Secondly, a staging point for organising and helping Xinjiang separatists if it is ever needed. (Though, this seems unlikely given the geography.)

    Thirdly, it also allows America to keep close to Pakistan for obvious reasons, but also because Pakistan wants Afghanistan as strategic depth against India. If Pak moved in, or stirred up trouble using proxies, India might invade Afghanistan, causing a major war of sorts.

    And, of course, America is right next door to Iran… And then there is Russia.

    Not “winning” in Afghanistan is consistent with everything I have said. Everything you say is also consistent. I believe your position is probably correct though as the primary reason.

    However, the Pentagon Papers and FDR’s et all lies should make one cautious about America’s stated intentions v real intentions.

    What to do?

    There is no need to throw salt on the fields, as in Carthage. Gaul was a taxed, peaceful and prosperous province when Caesar was done with it — though he did have to kill quite a bit of obstinate Gauls.

    I like UR’s plan to fix Iraq. I have some widgets to add.

    So, formalise the tribes. Provide security using private military corporations, paid for by insurance companies (who collect rents). The companies are floated on the stock market in Dubai.

    Recruit, or press gang, young Muslims in France, England and Germany and send them out to Afghanistan as privates. Make them serve twenty years, like the legion. Then, give them nice little bits of land in the Afghan, and stock in various Afghan companies (see below).

    Ex-officers from Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey can form the NCO and officer class. Higher-ranking officers, and other specialists, can be Ex US, UK military.

    Build a wall, physical and electronic, and all sorts of other fancy technology between Afghan and Pak. (The Taliban use Pak’s North West Frontier as a base.)

    Initiate full scale assaults into Pakistan’s Northwest region, with full support of the Pakistan military. (It would be good if they were in charge of the country.)

    Smash the Taliban.

    My point about Caesar was not an idle one. I remember reading in his commentaries that he ordered that the Gauls who had been pardoned, but who fought again, be punished by having their hands chopped off and being allowed to live.

    These people are not scared of dying, but they are scared of living with shame and disgrace and dishonour. Little boys and girls would see these handless men, and ask their mommies why? The answer was that they opposed Rome. So, the new generation would have a constant psychological association between resistance and shame and failure.

    The object of war is to psychologically break the enemy’s will to resist. Napoleon called it breaking their equilibrium.

    There is a psychological dimension to war, that has been forgotten; it has been forgotten because it has been suppressed.

    Resources should be concentrated on the enemies’s weakest point.

    Their weakness is A: Religion. B: Women and Children and their manly honour.

    A: If their religion faced open, clear and simple and endlessly repetitive intellectual refutations, it would wear them down. B: A jihad of jokes. Constant and consistent laugh riots, of a mocking and humiliating kind. In short, full spectrum propaganda using all aspects of the media. You Jews have a particular talent for this (Curb Your Fanaticism anyone? A Muslim Blazing Saddles?)

    B: Not what you think. No, liberation and emancipation along the western route is what drives them crazy. (Of course, this contains problems as talked about above.)

    Why not just airlift all the women and children?

    Let’s suppose we tried that plan of private security etc. I bet that some tribes would resist. We get other tribes etc to turn on them, and jointly crush them. And the women and children, and property go to the other tribes.

    Finally, and I will put this delicately.
    1: You know what happens in American prisons?
    2: You know Jihadis like to make tapes of executions, and of martyrs. They have videos of martyrs because they can then use it as leverage against them if they back out.
    3: Do you know what Erdogan did to the soldiers who carried out the recent failed coup?
    4: Put it all together…..

    As Lecter’s shrink said: “Extreme acts of cruelty require a high level of empathy”.

    One more thing.

    Opium.

    Lota money to be made there. The war on drugs, and the destruction of poppies actually makes things worse in Afgan.

    You could run a vertically integrated drug operation from Helmand to Harlem.

    Ever seen the Wire? Stringer Bell? Legalise, regulate, tax. Let the drugs be sold by specially designed black corporations 51% black ownership and control. Black security companies provide security via insurance rents. Re-train the more pliant blacks in jail as guards, salesmen, functionaries etc

    Ending the war on drugs, and generally moving towards a for profit system (housing, health, education, security), with some special handicaps for blacks, is the best way to not only to solve problems for blacks but win their support at elections.

    All this will not happen, however. Or, at least, it is not likely.

    What is likely is that America will pull out in disgrace, or some overwhelming disaster will befall them.

    Finally.

    Why is there so much resistance against Trump’s plans for a deal with Russia?

    I understand the media and the left, but it appears that the intelligence agencies are playing games as well.

    What gives?

  17. It’s about the “rules of the road.” If one actor breaks the rules and does not get punished, then others (such as China) will factor that into its cost/benefit ratio. It’s just one factor that would have to weighed — one not mentioned in your article, but that’s ok.

    That is a risk, but I feel it would still be worth it to ignore Crimea because the alternatives are less desirable.

    3: Ukraine. Yes, you are probably right. Point is, it’s all about negotiation. Positions evolve as the negotiations continue.

    I don’t think the time is right to even propose annexation. It’s not necessary to antagonize the Ukrainian government or Central Europeans to that degree especially when we may need their help, or at least acquiescence, fashioning a broader deal with Russia.

    4: Jews and Europe. That was a brutal reply. Probably true. Sickening, but then no more sickening than their sacrifice of their “own” population”.

    Precisely. It shouldn’t be surprising that many American Jews are willing to let down their coreligionists in Israel when the entire Western world is also committing national suicide.

    5: Christopher Coker. I have read several of his books, and watched many of his lectures. I highly recommend The Improbable War: America and China.

    If he thinks like me he must be on the right track. I will find time to look more into his positions.

    Ferguson I will look at later.

    Trump has said surprisingly little about this country, be interesting to see what he will do.

    He probably sees there are no good options – he cannot withdraw from the area because of the symbolism of the 911 attacks but he can’t do much of anything with the occupation either.

    Re; Gauls & Afghans, the difference between what Caesar did and what you propose is with the populations. The Gauls were capable of being civilized and once they were the Roman brutality imposed on them ended. The Afghans cannot be civilized no matter what measures short of nuclear destruction are applied to them, which means the harsh treatment you propose would have to be sustained permanently. It would also be corrupting on the American military forces that would have to train client Afghans to participate in black market activities.

    Where Afghanistan fits in a containment strategy against China is dubious. As pointed out the Afghans are exceptionally unstable. Even if their country can be stabilized to a point where it is a satisfactory proxy state, the effort required would consume more resources than would be offset by its benefits. And why use them as an unstable proxy when we can have stable proxies in Japan, Taiwan, potentially Russia (another reason why looking the other way with Crimea is worthwhile), India, Singapore and others?

    Trump’s plans to negotiate with Russia have encountered a good deal of resistance from most of the rest of the Wet primarily because Trump proposed it, mixed with some legitimate concerns about Russia potentially being a threat. When Obama proposed resetting relations the Left hailed him as a genius.

  18. “Re; Gauls & Afghans, the difference between what Caesar did and what you propose is with the populations. The Gauls were capable of being civilized and once they were the Roman brutality imposed on them ended. The Afghans cannot be civilized no matter what measures short of nuclear destruction are applied to them, which means the harsh treatment you propose would have to be sustained permanently. It would also be corrupting on the American military forces that would have to train client Afghans to participate in black market activities.”

    Why are the populations different? HBD? Was life in Afghanistan not a little different in the fifties? In the end, it’s an empirical question whether they can or cannot be civilised. However, if by civilised you mean Western, then perhaps you are right, but if it means an end to violent resistance I think that is an easier goal.

    It would require an Orwellian (in the security, observational sense) level of control; splitting Afghan from Pak; using some very dirty (public and private) methods initially. And oh, I forgot to mention hostages, Caesar took lots of hostages.

    Yes, you would not want American or Afghan troops involved; special detachments from American jails, or Muslim recruits from France, Germany, and even men from Africa could be used.

    However, all this, as you will agree, is a reductio ad absurdum. It will never happen. It simply demonstrates the fact that Americans and Westerners cannot fight these kinds of wars at the physical, psychological, political and grand strategic level.

    The implications are not comforting.

    The other radical option is simply to pull out, find a strongman and put him in charge.

    Trump could sell it to the left. However, he would need something in return, especially to satisfy his base. A constitutional amendment prohibiting any Muslims, or anyone suspected of being a Muslim from becoming a citizen, or gaining asylum for the next 100 years. Could be a deal of century! (Hell, you could construct grand bargain on that.)

    In the end, it seems Mackinder was right: democracies cannot think strategically.

    “Where Afghanistan fits in a containment strategy against China is dubious. As pointed out the Afghans are exceptionally unstable. Even if their country can be stabilized to a point where it is a satisfactory proxy state, the effort required would consume more resources than would be offset by its benefits. And why use them as an unstable proxy when we can have stable proxies in Japan, Taiwan, potentially Russia (another reason why looking the other way with Crimea is worthwhile), India, Singapore and others?”

    It is not about using Afghan as a proxy, but as a base to lunch attacks, and potentially ferry support to Xinjiang separatists. It’s an encirclement, America has China ringed from the East, but not from the West. Plus the other reasons for other countries. Maybe it is simply a good pivot point, worth the losses (to the deep state).

    I had been formulating these thoughts for a while, but then I discovered the “Pentagon Papers”. I never learned about that in my school textbooks!

    It’s a possibility, that’s all.

    I think we are running out of things to talk about on this.

    Let me ask a question: suppose your were looking for a figure from England’s past who could serve as a somewhat analogous figure to Hamilton, who would it be? And if so, any reading you recommend?

    My first thought was “to begin reform is to begin revolution” Wellington. Wellington was, it seems, a failure as a Prime Minister, and I don’t think he ever wrote any political analysis.

    What about Lord Castlereagh? (Whose father, by the way, apparently came from the town I live in.)

    Finally, you read philosophy yes?

    What do you think of this lady:

    http://celiagreen.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Society

    She writes about many of the things we are interested in, mostly it is about the equalitarian state and its many ills. She’s from England, and she is very old — old enough to remember what life was like before 1945. She says it was called the “peaceful revolution.”

    I read her book, Advice to Clever Children.

    There, she develops what she calls “centralised psychology” and compares her concept to monarchy, and she is a fan of aristocracy. You might like it, she offers a very peculiar set of observations on life and human existence.

    Are you going to post something on the hard problem of consciousness on Friday?

    It would be interesting to exchange thoughts on that.

    Best.

  19. However, all this, as you will agree, is a reductio ad absurdum. It will never happen. It simply demonstrates the fact that Americans and Westerners cannot fight these kinds of wars at the physical, psychological, political and grand strategic level.

    Reductio ad absurdum is productive for theorizing, UR is proof of that.

    Theoretically,

    Why is Afghanistan Afghanistan? Hard to say; all of its neighbors have managed to at least unify themselves under absolute rulers, but the Afghans are still living in an even more primitive nomadic/tribal system.

    To what degree their problems can be attributed to culture or genetics is unclear, but I would not want to attempt changing it regardless of cause. Using minorities, especially ones with prison records, is questionable because of their incompetence; playing the warlords off each other is a never ending wild goose chase trying to figure out which warlord is actually on our side at any given moment.

    As for a base to launch airstrikes against China, why depend on an Afghani base when we could hypothetically stage aircraft and offer aid to Chinese separatists from India? Or Kazakhstan, or Russia? There are more secure bases.

    Let me ask a question: suppose your were looking for a figure from England’s past who could serve as a somewhat analogous figure to Hamilton, who would it be? And if so, any reading you recommend?

    I don’t believe there is one. England’s rise as an economic power happened over centuries and has no single author.

    Hamilton’s legacy is particular to him in a very unique way.

    Wellington does not have extensive writings and his tenure in power was brief.

    Castlereagh, If I recall, had numerous writings but he died prematurely.

    Disraeli, whom Metternich adopted as a political protege, has numerous volumes of letters but I haven’t gotten to them yet.

    That blogger I will have to check out.

Comments are closed.